New Mozilla CEO issues statement, expresses “sorrow for causing pain”

Boilerplate "apologies" aren't going to cut it anymore. Unless the Foundation's decision is reversed or this CEO steps down, I'll not contribute one bit in the way of support for any Mozilla products; not while some double-dealing, two-faced man is the public face of a company. Hell, the spineless bastard can't even publicly stand up and take responsibility for what are contributions tantamount to the belief that LGBT people are not equal. No matter how well their written or open their own policies might be, Mozilla isn't getting my support. No matter how infinitely small an impact it might be, you've now lost me.

You hold on to that grudge and never let it go, I'm sure it will serve you well in life.

Are you sure your dentist and doctors all agree with your views? How about your cab driver or the local florist? It's clearly none of your business what people believe, and I doubt you screen everyone who you do business with.

I really don't understand apologies like these. Are we really to believe this is sincere? He spent some of his own money to remove the rights of others, ffs. That's not something you do on a whim, and I don't believe for a second that he's changed his mind about gay marriage. The only thing he's sorry for is the fact that his bigotry has had negative consequences.

[edit] I suppose if the outcome is positive for mozilla employees, then.. hooray. Dude's still a bigot, though.

I'm glad you have never changed your mind or regretted a past decision, but we're not all as perfect as you.

As for me, if you'd asked 15 years ago I would have told you that homosexual behavior was a sin against God. If you'd asked 10 years ago I would have told you I was uncomfortable with the idea of calling same-sex unions "marriage".

Boilerplate "apologies" aren't going to cut it anymore. Unless the Foundation's decision is reversed or this CEO steps down, I'll not contribute one bit in the way of support for any Mozilla products; not while some double-dealing, two-faced man is the public face of a company. Hell, the spineless bastard can't even publicly stand up and take responsibility for what are contributions tantamount to the belief that LGBT people are not equal. No matter how well their written or open their own policies might be, Mozilla isn't getting my support. No matter how infinitely small an impact it might be, you've now lost me.

You hold on to that grudge and never let it go, I'm sure it will serve you well in life.

Are you sure your dentist and doctors all agree with your views? How about your cab driver or the local florist? It's clearly none of your business what people believe, and I doubt you screen everyone who you do business with.

It's called having principles. If I find out that the local florist makes donations to horrible causes, is a racist, or any other kind of bigot, I will absolutely take my business elsewhere. I don't screen them in advance, but it was his choice to make a public donation to the cause of bigotry.

I really don't understand apologies like these. Are we really to believe this is sincere? He spent some of his own money to remove the rights of others, ffs. That's not something you do on a whim, and I don't believe for a second that he's changed his mind about gay marriage. The only thing he's sorry for is the fact that his bigotry has had negative consequences.

[edit] I suppose if the outcome is positive for mozilla employees, then.. hooray. Dude's still a bigot, though.

I'm glad you have never changed your mind or regretted a past decision, but we're not all as perfect as you.

As for me, if you'd asked 15 years ago I would have told you that homosexual behavior was a sin against God. If you'd asked 10 years ago I would have told you I was uncomfortable with the idea of calling same-sex unions "marriage".

I was wrong and regret that I ever held those beliefs.

Why are you so certain that Brendan Eich's statement is insincere?

Because if that is the way he truly felt he would have said "I'm sorry for donating." Instead he used the classic "I didn't know you would take it that way approach." A sincere apology would have admitted wrongdoing and assured people that was not the way he actually felt anymore.

Free Speech is a right in relation to the government. It is not freedom of consequences. You are free to say what you want. And people are free to interact with you based on what you say. Hateful speech tends not to be rewarded.

It's not *only* a civil right, it is also a liberal principle. A society that does not criminally punish unpopular speech is good, but that's really the minimum. A society that does not aggressively sanction marginal thoughts is better.

So if I express the opinion that religion is wrong and donate money to causes that are trying to make church attendance illegal, it is apparently a liberal principal that I should not only be legally allowed to do this (which no one here disagrees with) but that I should face no social ostracism for doing so? What if I believe we should bring back slavery, is it wrong to condemn me for it? Your opinion is bad, and you should feel bad.

No, you shouldn't be ostracized. You shouldn't be prevented from being friends with people who vehemently disagree with you, or prevented from earning any kind of a living. You should have millions of people telling you that you are so totally wrong and refusing to subscribe to your newsletter, over friendly beers at the pub.

Quote:

Couldn't disagree more.

If one of the founding principles a society is built upon states that all (wo)men are equal before the law, then any thought – marginal or not – that aims to circumvent said principle must be sanctioned.

Putting aside any principled objections to such a strategy, it is not likely to work out well, pragmatically. At least, it hasn't in most places it has been tried.

Free Speech is a right in relation to the government. It is not freedom of consequences. You are free to say what you want. And people are free to interact with you based on what you say. Hateful speech tends not to be rewarded.

It's not *only* a civil right, it is also a liberal principle. A society that does not criminally punish unpopular speech is good, but that's really the minimum. A society that does not aggressively sanction marginal thoughts is better.

So if I express the opinion that religion is wrong and donate money to causes that are trying to make church attendance illegal, it is apparently a liberal principal that I should not only be legally allowed to do this (which no one here disagrees with) but that I should face no social ostracism for doing so? What if I believe we should bring back slavery, is it wrong to condemn me for it? Your opinion is bad, and you should feel bad.

No, you shouldn't be ostracized. You shouldn't be prevented from being friends with people who vehemently disagree with you, or prevented from earning any kind of a living. You should have millions of people telling you that you are so totally wrong and refusing to subscribe to your newsletter, over friendly beers at the pub.

Quote:

Couldn't disagree more.

If one of the founding principles a society is built upon states that all (wo)men are equal before the law, then any thought – marginal or not – that aims to circumvent said principle must be sanctioned.

Putting aside any principled objections to such a strategy, it is not likely to work out well, pragmatically. At least, it hasn't in most places it has been tried.

No one is "preventing" him from having friends. People who disagree with him are exercising their right not to be his friend. Or work with him. Or give him money.

Whaaa. Actions have consequences. He made a public donation to a cause, people are choosing not to volunteer to work with someone who feels that other humans don't deserve equal rights. It's literally no different than any other kind of boycott.

A consumer boycott (choosing to not use a Mozilla project personally) and a professional boycott are two completely different things.

He specifically commented in a professional capacity ("the open source movement", which is work or profession). Had he said "I refuse to use Firefox because of this", that's fine since it's his personal opinion and choice.

But to suggest he will stop participating in improving Firefox (had he been one of the development team) or code the webpages of his clients to not work in Firefox, because of the personal opinions of someone else on the team completely outside the context of the project, is not appropriate in a professional setting.

Whaaa. Actions have consequences. He made a public donation to a cause, people are choosing not to volunteer to work with someone who feels that other humans don't deserve equal rights. It's literally no different than any other kind of boycott.

A consumer boycott (choosing to not use a Mozilla project personally) and a professional boycott are two completely different things.

He specifically commented in a professional capacity ("the open source movement", which is work or profession). Had he said "I refuse to use Firefox because of this", that's fine since it's his personal opinion and choice.

But to suggest he will stop participating in improving Firefox (had he been one of the development team) or code the webpages of his clients to not work in Firefox, because of the personal opinions of someone else on the team completely outside the context of the project, is not appropriate in a professional setting.

It's the principled thing to do. He is putting pressure on the Mozilla corporation to rethink their decision to use him as a CEO. Quitting in protest when a corporation does something unconscionable is a completely valid choice. Again, would you feel the same way if Apple elected a new CEO who was a KKK member? Or would it be unprofessional to quit just because you're actively supporting the income of a racist?

Free Speech is a right in relation to the government. It is not freedom of consequences. You are free to say what you want. And people are free to interact with you based on what you say. Hateful speech tends not to be rewarded.

It's not *only* a civil right, it is also a liberal principle. A society that does not criminally punish unpopular speech is good, but that's really the minimum. A society that does not aggressively sanction marginal thoughts is better.

So if I express the opinion that religion is wrong and donate money to causes that are trying to make church attendance illegal, it is apparently a liberal principal that I should not only be legally allowed to do this (which no one here disagrees with) but that I should face no social ostracism for doing so? What if I believe we should bring back slavery, is it wrong to condemn me for it? Your opinion is bad, and you should feel bad.

No, you shouldn't be ostracized. You shouldn't be prevented from being friends with people who vehemently disagree with you, or prevented from earning any kind of a living. You should have millions of people telling you that you are so totally wrong and refusing to subscribe to your newsletter, over friendly beers at the pub.

Quote:

Couldn't disagree more.

If one of the founding principles a society is built upon states that all (wo)men are equal before the law, then any thought – marginal or not – that aims to circumvent said principle must be sanctioned.

Putting aside any principled objections to such a strategy, it is not likely to work out well, pragmatically. At least, it hasn't in most places it has been tried.

No one is "preventing" him from having friends. People who disagree with him are exercising their right not to be his friend. Or work with him. Or give him money.

Well, we were speaking hypothetically. In this case, I would not be surprised if his close friends and associates faced similar pressure to distance themselves from him. I'm not saying people don't have the right to do this, they clearly do. I'm saying it's a shitty way for people in a pluralistic society to start behaving. Demanding what is essentially a blacklist is not something you should feel proud of.

He helped found Mozilla.org/Mozilla Foundation, developed JavaScript, and there can't be many others who have had a longer career in browsers than he.

He may or may not support gay marriage, he didn't seem to a while back. That's it? That's his big flaw? Sounds like a relatively decent guy among the CEO crowd. His statement sure makes it seem like he's committed to leading in a way that is fair, not much more to it than that.

Free Speech is a right in relation to the government. It is not freedom of consequences.

But how far are you willing to go to impose those consequences? If, magically, a list of everyone who voted for Prop 8 dropped into your lap, would you impose these same negative consequences on all those people? What kind of civil society would we have if everything becomes and eye-for-an-eye and retribution is exacted for every offense?

He helped found Mozilla.org/Mozilla Foundation, developed JavaScript, and there can't be many others who have had a longer career in browsers than he.

He may or may not support gay marriage, he didn't seem to a while back. That's it? That's his big flaw? Sounds like a relatively decent guy among the CEO crowd. His statement sure makes it seem like he's committed to leading in a way that is fair, not much more to it than that.

It appears his personal politics, something he chose to put into the public sphere, are making him a liability to Mozilla. Which makes him not a good choice for CEO.

I don't see what the apology was for. There was nothing wrong for this guy to exercise his right to participate in the political process which was done in a completely lawful way.

It was not up to this guy for Prop 8 to pass or not like some of the comments here make it out to be, it was the voters. Actions do have consequences this guy gave money to a political cause years ago that lost, that should be the only consequence.

I don't see where any inappropriate behavior was engaged in, or anything with malice that would rise to the level of hate, it is all just being assumed.

I don't think it is right to punish someone today for what happened in 2008, that is longer than the statue of limitations for most crimes in most states. Especially when there is no evidence of any recent inappropriate behavior, this whole thing just comes across as vindictive and intimidation.

None of what this guy did has anything to do with Mozilla as an organization, this guy isn't Mozilla, Mozilla is made up of alot of different people.

Free speech means also having the right to say, "You're an asshole and I want nothing whatsoever to do with you or your company."

That said, the apology is a step in the right direction, and enough to keep me using Firefox unless and until they do something to make me doubt it

Does the social/political view of the CEO of Mozilla in any way inhibit your use of Firefox? If Eich quit and started working at Google, would you stop using Chrome (assuming he hadn't made this apology)?

Are you going to now switch to Internet Explorer and disable JavaScript and any other technology he might have had a hand in?

He helped found Mozilla.org/Mozilla Foundation, developed JavaScript, and there can't be many others who have had a longer career in browsers than he.

He may or may not support gay marriage, he didn't seem to a while back. That's it? That's his big flaw? Sounds like a relatively decent guy among the CEO crowd. His statement sure makes it seem like he's committed to leading in a way that is fair, not much more to it than that.

His technical qualifications alone do not make him fit to be the face of the company. Already his appointment to the role has turned into a PR nightmare for Mozilla. Therefore, he's not fit for the job. Part of his job as a CEO would be to foster good will with the community and partners of his company.

It's the principled thing to do. He is putting pressure on the Mozilla corporation to rethink their decision to use him as a CEO. Quitting in protest when a corporation does something unconscionable is a completely valid choice. Again, would you feel the same way if Apple elected a new CEO who was a KKK member? Or would it be unprofessional to quit just because you're actively supporting the income of a racist?

No, it's not. It's the opinionated thing to do, not principles. There is a huge difference and you are trying to mix them up.

Yes, if a corporation does something unconscionable, you have the right to quit on professional grounds because the CORPORATION did it. If the CEO on his or her own time or money did something that you disagree on and you decided to quit then you are being unprofessional.

Yes, it would be unprofessional to quit Apple if Apple hired a white supremacist. Yes, you would be unprofessional to stop buying Apple products for your company if you found they hired a white supremacist. But if you stop buying their products personally for the same reason, that is your right.

Now, if you worked for Apple and that white supremacist repeatedly talked about his views during work and it made you uncomfortable, he is being unprofessional and you have the right to force the company to take action against him.

Professionalism literally means you divide yourself into two people, the worker and the human. When people start breaking down that barrier, they are wading into some really dangerous waters.

prop 8, i think it was called "A Bill, based on malice and hate, to specifically ban an entire group of people from a certain activity that conservatives have in no way, shape, or form, ever masturbated while watching, especially not that time in college, my roomate was on my computer"

It's the principled thing to do. He is putting pressure on the Mozilla corporation to rethink their decision to use him as a CEO. Quitting in protest when a corporation does something unconscionable is a completely valid choice. Again, would you feel the same way if Apple elected a new CEO who was a KKK member? Or would it be unprofessional to quit just because you're actively supporting the income of a racist?

No, it's not. It's the opinionated thing to do, not principles. There is a huge difference and you are trying to mix them up.

Yes, if a corporation does something unconscionable, you have the right to quit on professional grounds because the CORPORATION did it. If the CEO on his or her own time or money did something that you disagree on and you decided to quit then you are being unprofessional.

Yes, it would be unprofessional to quit Apple if Apple hired a white supremacist. Yes, you would be unprofessional to stop buying Apple products for your company if you found they hired a white supremacist. But if you stop buying their products personally for the same reason, that is your right.

Now, if you worked for Apple and that white supremacist repeatedly talked about his views during work and it made you uncomfortable, he is being unprofessional and you have the right to force the company to take action against him.

Professionalism literally means you divide yourself into two people, the worker and the human. When people start breaking down that barrier, they are wading into some really dangerous waters.

Hiring a bigot is unconscionable. It was unprofessional on their part to elect someone who would cause such a controversy, and although I have previously used Firefox and donated money to the Mozilla foundation, I will likely stop doing either until such time as he is fired. By hiring him Mozilla is tacitly saying they agree with his opinions, and I choose not to give my money to bigots.

I'd proffer that mine involves a healthy understanding of the difference between private individuals acting individually and a group of very profitable companies with an oligopsony on employment opportunities, but by and large, I'm not opposed to the idea of companies not hiring people based on their actions. If a very good actor publicly joined the KKK, I'd have no problem with a studio not hiring them. Ditto the idea of a right-wing news program not hiring a left-wing commentator.

How a person, especially a public one, will affect your company, is a perfectly valid consideration. That doesn't mean it can't be abused, but the default should be that when a person's actions affect a company, their beliefs matter. A store clerk who says "I hate gays" is probably a poor hire in a liberal town with a large gay population. Ditto one who say "the South is full of ignorant racists" in rural Georgia.

If you make your beliefs public, then people can judge you on them. There's no doubt the mob mentality can happen, and is not particularly commendable, but that doesn't mean that people with opinions should suppress them. If I don't want to shop at a store because of the behavior of the staff, that's my right. And if the company fires a person because they are losing money (or they are afraid they will), then why is that wrong?

I'd proffer that mine involves a healthy understanding of the difference between private individuals acting individually and a group of very profitable companies with an oligopsony on employment opportunities, but by and large, I'm not opposed to the idea of companies not hiring people based on their actions. If a very good actor publicly joined the KKK, I'd have no problem with a studio not hiring them. Ditto the idea of a right-wing news program not hiring a left-wing commentator.

How a person, especially a public one, will affect your company, is a perfectly valid consideration. That doesn't mean it can't be abused, but the default should be that when a person's actions affect a company, their beliefs matter. A store clerk who says "I hate gays" is probably a poor hire in a liberal town with a large gay population. Ditto one who say "the South is full of ignorant racists" in rural Georgia.

If you make your beliefs public, then people can judge you on them. There's no doubt the mob mentality can happen, and is not particularly commendable, but that doesn't mean that people with opinions should suppress them. If I don't want to shop at a store because of the behavior of the staff, that's my right. And if the company fires a person because they are losing money (or they are afraid they will), then why is that wrong?

It's also worth noting that that blacklist was a government imposed one.

Well, we were speaking hypothetically. In this case, I would not be surprised if his close friends and associates faced similar pressure to distance themselves from him. I'm not saying people don't have the right to do this, they clearly do. I'm saying it's a shitty way for people in a pluralistic society to start behaving. Demanding what is essentially a blacklist is not something you should feel proud of.

No one took him at gunpoint and forced him to donate to deny people equal rights.

But apparently people who he has hurt are now forced to forgive him unequivocally, regardless of sincerity and actual actions and related weight, and do business with the company he now represents and is paid by?

Hmm.

Many gay people face exactly this type of discrimination (and far worse) not for their choices in who they give money to in order to hurt someone else, but simply due to their innate sexuality. What he donated to is part of what encourages people in that type of action, and you're saying it's wrong to work against that?

Wait, I'm starting to get confused here. He actively engaged in what you're purportedly speaking out against, but shouldn't face any consequences for doing so, while those trying to stop it should?

Because when you peel back the layers of your argument, that's what fundamentally remains. Most people are not trying to do any of what you said, they are simply personally making a statement against him for his bigoted actions and failure to actually make any real amends.

No one is talking about taking away his marriage rights because he worked to take away someone else's, or any other form of actual "retribution." But we're also not going to take being discriminated against lying down. But apparently his actions should be consequence free for him.

You can't remove the societal impact in causing direct harm to others of his personal actions from the response against him. It's not a matter of retribution, it's one of protection against someone proven to be in favor of persecution potentially continuing to engage in a previously established and confirmed pattern.

But apparently his actions should be free of this consequence? While others should have to pay the cost of his actions?

I'm not arguing that "two wrongs make a right." I'm arguing that when someone is proven to engage in hateful acts, it's fair to work to protect yourself from their influence and the harm it may directly have in your life, until it can be proven that they are no longer going to engage in said acts. Our entire criminal justice system is founded on that ideal (supposedly) but apparently that's wrong?

I don't see what the apology was for. There was nothing wrong for this guy to exercise his right to participate in the political process which was done in a completely lawful way.

His apology was to encourage users and developers to keep supporting Firefox.

There's nothing wrong with his exercise in the political process.

There is also nothing wrong with people vilifying him for it.

Quote:

It was not up to this guy for Prop 8 to pass or not like some of the comments here make it out to be, it was the voters. Actions do have consequences this guy gave money to a political cause years ago that lost, that should be the only consequence.

Why? Consequences aren't meted out immediately, they linger and ripple and resurface.

If you say something today, you can be called out on it in a decade.

Quote:

I don't see where any inappropriate behavior was engaged in, or anything with malice that would rise to the level of hate, it is all just being assumed.

I don't think he did something inappropriate at all, but you cannot honestly see how supporting prop 8 isn't fundamentally discriminatory? I mean, I could kill you without emotion, and thus have acted in no malice, right?

Quote:

I don't think it is right to punish someone today for what happened in 2008, that is longer than the statue of limitations for most crimes in most states. Especially when there is no evidence of any recent inappropriate behavior, this whole thing just comes across as vindictive and intimidation.

Except the crime was ongoing up until June of last year.

Prop 8 was still in effect, so his crime hadn't expired, since his funding had supported it, until the US Supreme Court ruled that there was no standing for appeal, where the 9th circuit had found it prior to be unconstitutional.

Quote:

None of what this guy did has anything to do with Mozilla as an organization, this guy isn't Mozilla, Mozilla is made up of alot of different people.

While correct, his power as CEO is considerable, as would his financial compensation.

You're basing #2 on a 10yr old donation? So if he continues to lead Mozilla into profits, keeps the inclusive hiring rules and policies in place, makes no attempt to discriminate in the workplace, and creates jobs in a State that's hurting for jobs....he's not fit as a CEO?

Sorry but that's a load of bullshit. It's one thing to argue that his personal views may reflect badly on the company's image. It's a different ballgame to claim he's unfit when his business history has been successful and offers some real potential to running Mozilla into increased profits.

Mozilla is a business, not a social justice group chat. His main concern is making profit. If he cant retain talent and the company suffers, then you can make that claim. The problem is that CA has way too much talent and not enough jobs. While there are plenty that are outraged (and rightly so) over his personal views, the policies at the company are just fine and I don't see the talent just walking away from this as it will not affect them.

It's not his views that he should apologize for. It's his actions. He ACTIVELY gave money in order to destroy the civil rights of others.

As an aside, what about the people who voted for Prop 8? If you live in California, there is a large chance that greater than 50% of the voters around you,right now, voted for Prop 8.

Edit: Not sure if people are misunderstanding my question. I'm wasn't asking because of any defense of Mozilla's new CEO. I was asking out of general curiosity of how JohnnyLocust felt. I'm of the general opinion that people can change, and I believe we're seeing the evidence of that every year.

I'm really surprised by how many people have a problem with this guy's past donations. He participated in the political process. What's wrong with that? If people can be fired/forced to resign over their voting record/political donations, I have a big problem with that.

Free Speech is a right in relation to the government. It is not freedom of consequences. You are free to say what you want. And people are free to interact with you based on what you say. Hateful speech tends not to be rewarded.

It's not *only* a civil right, it is also a liberal principle. A society that does not criminally punish unpopular speech is good, but that's really the minimum. A society that does not aggressively sanction marginal thoughts is better.

So if I express the opinion that religion is wrong and donate money to causes that are trying to make church attendance illegal, it is apparently a liberal principal that I should not only be legally allowed to do this (which no one here disagrees with) but that I should face no social ostracism for doing so? What if I believe we should bring back slavery, is it wrong to condemn me for it? Your opinion is bad, and you should feel bad.

No, you shouldn't be ostracized. You shouldn't be prevented from being friends with people who vehemently disagree with you, or prevented from earning any kind of a living. You should have millions of people telling you that you are so totally wrong and refusing to subscribe to your newsletter, over friendly beers at the pub.

Quote:

Couldn't disagree more.

If one of the founding principles a society is built upon states that all (wo)men are equal before the law, then any thought – marginal or not – that aims to circumvent said principle must be sanctioned.

Putting aside any principled objections to such a strategy, it is not likely to work out well, pragmatically. At least, it hasn't in most places it has been tried.

No one is "preventing" him from having friends. People who disagree with him are exercising their right not to be his friend. Or work with him. Or give him money.

Well, we were speaking hypothetically. In this case, I would not be surprised if his close friends and associates faced similar pressure to distance themselves from him. I'm not saying people don't have the right to do this, they clearly do. I'm saying it's a shitty way for people in a pluralistic society to start behaving. Demanding what is essentially a blacklist is not something you should feel proud of.

And how do you think the people he prevented from marrying for the past 5 years felt?

Prop 8 won the popular vote by a comfortable margin only to be negated by a few CA judges later on. And based on my anecdotal experience, I'm guessing the majority of Prop 8 supporters actually would have no problem giving all legal/tax/whatever rights to gay couples except to call their relationship a marriage. Are they still bigots like some commenters called him above? In my view they are not.

If you don't like his view, you are of course completely free to work for another company. But the chances (70+%?) are other CEOs probably also supported the Prop 8.

Just as when the million moms group tried to boycott JC Penny for hiring Ellen, or the numerous boycotts that happen when a company announces support for gay marriage, speaking with your dollars is your right and I support it fully, even if I disagree with the message.

I'm really surprised by how many people have a problem with this guy's past donations. He participated in the political process. What's wrong with that? If people can be fired/forced to resign over their voting record/political donations, I have a big problem with that.

It's not that he participating in the political process that people are upset about. More like he voted for Hitler to be president because he liked Hitler's hatred of the Jews. But not quite that extreme.

Hiring a bigot is unconscionable. It was unprofessional on their part to elect someone who would cause such a controversy, and although I have previously used Firefox and donated money to the Mozilla foundation, I will likely stop doing either until such time as he is fired. By hiring him Mozilla is tacitly saying they agree with his opinions, and I choose not to give my money to bigots.

It is pretty obvious you do not understand what professionalism means. I have tried to explain by answering your questions but what you just said is perhaps the epitome of what professionalism is not.

You cannot decide to hire or fire someone by their personal opinions. That is literally one of the cornerstones of the foundation of professionalism.

I think we agree that Prop 8 being passed was a travesty but this is no way to behave in the honor of those who were wronged.

It's not his views that he should apologize for. It's his actions. He ACTIVELY gave money in order to destroy the civil rights of others.

As an aside, what about the people who voted for Prop 8? If you live in California, there is a large chance that greater than 50% of the voters around you,right now, voted for Prop 8.

It's a secret ballot, but I do, in my personal life, choose not to associate with people who don't believe in equality for all people regardless of race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. I would quit my job if I believed I had a boss who was a bigot.

Boilerplate "apologies" aren't going to cut it anymore. Unless the Foundation's decision is reversed or this CEO steps down, I'll not contribute one bit in the way of support for any Mozilla products; not while some double-dealing, two-faced man is the public face of a company. Hell, the spineless bastard can't even publicly stand up and take responsibility for what are contributions tantamount to the belief that LGBT people are not equal. No matter how well their written or open their own policies might be, Mozilla isn't getting my support. No matter how infinitely small an impact it might be, you've now lost me.

You hold on to that grudge and never let it go, I'm sure it will serve you well in life.

Are you sure your dentist and doctors all agree with your views? How about your cab driver or the local florist? It's clearly none of your business what people believe, and I doubt you screen everyone who you do business with.

It's called having principals. If I find out that the local florist makes donations to horrible causes, is a racist, or any other kind of bigot, I will absolutely take my business elsewhere. I don't screen them in advance, but it was his choice to make a public donation to the cause of bigotry.

It's principles, not principals, just fyi.

To me it seems like the outrage du'jour, maybe there are a lot of people who never shop at Hobby Lobby for their overt religious beliefs, or eat Chick-fil-A. But the list of prop 8 contributors is available for all to view, and there may well be people on it who's company you spend at.

Mozilla isn't espousing unpopular views as a whole, so the question is, where do you draw the line? At what point do one employee's views make the entire company they work for worthy of wrath? His statement seems genuine, he's never said anything hateful to my knowledge, so why the outrage?

I'm hearing:"Years ago you screwed up, and I'm not sure you're really sorry about it so you should be fired."

I'm really surprised by how many people have a problem with this guy's past donations. He participated in the political process. What's wrong with that? If people can be fired/forced to resign over their voting record/political donations, I have a big problem with that.

There is a huge difference between casting a vote as an individual citizen (something which is protected as private) and engaging in political donations (something which is PUBLIC RECORD for a reason). The latter is no different than holding an elected official responsible for their own votes within the body they were elected to.

I guess accountability (since that along with "responsibility" is such a cornerstone of a certain party) goes out the window whenever it involves doing anything anti-gay.

prop 8, i think it was called "A Bill, based on malice and hate, to specifically ban an entire group of people from a certain activity that conservatives have in no way, shape, or form, ever masturbated while watching, especially not that time in college, my roomate was on my computer"

Did this guy have anything to do with the creation of that proposition? Has he done anything recently?

Again this guy didn't decide on that one proposition, but the voters of that state to decide what proposition they want enacted or not.

The voters decided, this proposition was defeated and that should have been the end of it, instead of some people pursuing revenge almost six years later.

If it is ok to "punish" this guy then what about other propositions or votes?

The democratic process worked as it should have in this instance, and I think the whole part of a free democratic process is that people shouldn't fear retribution for participating.

It's not his views that he should apologize for. It's his actions. He ACTIVELY gave money in order to destroy the civil rights of others.

As an aside, what about the people who voted for Prop 8? If you live in California, there is a large chance that greater than 50% of the voters around you,right now, voted for Prop 8.

I would quit my job if I believed I had a boss who was a bigot.

Is that really much better than "I'll move out of this neighborhood if that new family is colored."?

I guess I'm just the old-school card-carrying-member-of-the-ACLU type who thinks, "I don't like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

(Yes, I know it's not the state imposing sanctions against this speech, but in practical terms, is there really much difference between that and a mob of pitchfork-wielding people imposing those sanctions?)